D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[Staffan]

When the player is playing their character in a way they they player sees as good and the DM gets on their case? No there's not.

IMO, alignment as a game mechanic has to be objective. There is objective Good and Evil in the world. Someone may think that stealing from allies or persecuting people for their skin color is "good", but they're wrong.

 

[S'mon]

I figure we could use a palate cleanser. So, how about alignment? Do you prefer the classic nine, the 4e five, or something else? What about Chaotic Neutral – 1e/2e's random wackiness or 3e/5e's anarchist?

The only version I like is Law vs Chaos as in OD&D (from Poul Anderson & Michael Moorcock), where characters are actually 'aligned' to a cosmic force. Dark v Light as in Lone Wolf works too. I don't like Alignment as a personality description.

 

[Andvari]

The only version I like is Law vs Chaos as in OD&D (from Poul Anderson & Michael Moorcock), where characters are actually 'aligned' to a cosmic force. Dark v Light as in Lone Wolf works too. I don't like Alignment as a personality description.

I think alignment could work well as cosmic allegiance depending on campaign setting, while broad personality traits could be drawn upon as effective tools for characterization. Curious vs cautious, that sort of thing.

 

[Staffan]

Palpatine is Chaotic Evil. You'd think that the head of the fascist Galactic Empire would be Lawful Evil, but no (Tarkin, and later Thrawn, are though). Palpatine cares only for himself. The Empire is a tool he uses to accomplish his own goals, but he doesn't care about it. He's only interested in Ultimate Power.

I thought of a better and perhaps more PC-appropriate example of Chaotic Evil: Jayne Cobb (at least at the start of Firefly). He is only in it for himself and the money he can make as a part of the crew, but he'd sell them out in a heartbeat if the money's good enough. Heck, he joined the crew by betraying his old crew (for the promise of a room of his own).

 

[Oofta]

I thought of a better and perhaps more PC-appropriate example of Chaotic Evil: Jayne Cobb (at least at the start of Firefly). He is only in it for himself and the money he can make as a part of the crew, but he'd sell them out in a heartbeat if the money's good enough. Heck, he joined the crew by betraying his old crew (for the promise of a room of his own).

Whereas I would probably call them CN. Yes, they break rules, but he also showed compassion at least on occasion. He was self-centered but not cruel or sadistic, he didn't go out of his way to harm others that we saw. Or at least that's what I'd make their alignment if I had a character that acted like them.

On the other hand The Joker* is my epitome of chaotic evil. Enjoys flaunting the rules of society, causing harm to others just because it's enjoyable, breaks things just because he can. Even though he is often considered insane, he is actually quite brilliant and purposeful in the harm that he does.

But we also have to remember that alignment is just one aspect of a person, and that something as simple as alignment can't capture the entire essence of a person. We can't really get into the mind of other people, even fictional ones, most of the time. Doesn't mean alignment can't be useful, just that it's a starting point not the end.

*Depending on depiction of course, like most comic book characters there are many different authors who have their own spin.

 

[payn]

I would not be opposed to putting mechanical rules in the DMG for Alignment or even discusson of different models of alignment (e.g., LvC, 4e's five, GvE, MtG Color Pie, etc.) and allegiance. Again, I think that Theros's piety rules would potentially be a good place to start when it comes to Alignment. My own preference, as I've said before, is Alignment as Faction rather than Alignment as Personality Type. That would also, IMHO, do wonders for a lot of the "monster alignment" discourse.

Im not sure when the personality type description idea came along, but alignment has never been that. You can be surely, meek, assertive, open, neurotic, etc... all within the same alignment. Alignment is a philosophical outlook that tells us what the ultimate ideal a character's actions lead to, and how and what they are willing to do to achieve it. Which is why factions can be given an alignment as well as individuals. It already does faction play as is.

Honestly, the real f up when it comes to alignment was the mechanical punishments for not being strict enough. Those were always bad ideas and I say this as a person who really likes alignment. It has not always been implemented well, and decades later that still has an impact on folks idea of what alignment is and what its supposed to do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm in the "Alignments should be setting specific and a part of worldbuilding" camp. oD&D's Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic works well in Greyhawk but not everywhere. The Nentir Vale's G/N/E with two extras (LG = refuse to accept the world as it is, CG = wants to watch the world burn/wants to eat the world) works well for the themes of the Nentir Vale. Dragonlance should be "Good"/Neutral/Evil (to me the most sense of the setting's morality is if you take Paladine as being a slightly crazy neutral god who sides with good and is allowed to call himself the leader because they need the help and he's the strongest).

Failing making them setting specific I'll take the 5e "this is a minor descriptor".

 

[Clint_L]

IMO, alignment as a game mechanic has to be objective. There is objective Good and Evil in the world.

You state that with such confidence, yet thousands of years of philosophers have debated this question, and continue to debate it, and we just have to look at different cultures and histories to see that there is, objectively, no certainty on the matter. Conversely, a lot of bad stuff has been done by people convinced that they knew good and evil with certainty. In fact, the more convinced they were, the more likely to do terrible things.

As far as D&D alignments go, I find chaotic and lawful much easier to wrap my head around, because I can link them to physics, in a loose way.

 

[Aldarc]

Im not sure when the personality type description idea came along, but alignment has never been that. You can be surely, meek, assertive, open, neurotic, etc... all within the same alignment. Alignment is a philosophical outlook that tells us what the ultimate ideal a character's actions lead to, and how and what they are willing to do to achieve it. Which is why factions can be given an alignment as well as individuals. It already does faction play as is.

Honestly, the real f up when it comes to alignment was the mechanical punishments for not being strict enough. Those were always bad ideas and I say this as a person who really likes alignment. It has not always been implemented well, and decades later that still has an impact on folks idea of what alignment is and what its supposed to do.

Say what? Alignment as personality type is a big part of how alignment operates in the popular consciousness. When people debate a fictional character's alignment, it's done with the same manner and purpose as when people debate a fictional character's Myers-Brigg's personality type. You say that it has never been that but it is often linked to personality and personal dispositions in the 5e PHB, and I would say that it is treated more so as an aspect of personality than it is to the factions that a character aligns themselves to.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You state that with such confidence, yet thousands of years of philosophers have debated this question, and continue to debate it, and we just have to look at different cultures and histories to see that there is, objectively, no certainty on the matter. Conversely, a lot of bad stuff has been done by people convinced that they knew good and evil with certainty. In fact, the more convinced they were, the more likely to do terrible things.

As far as D&D alignments go, I find chaotic and lawful much easier to wrap my head around, because I can link them to physics, in a loose way.

but we're not talking about real world good and evil, this is solely for the purposes of the game where there are beings that are manifestations/constructs of pure good/law/ect..., in that context it makes TOTAL SENSE for there to be 'objective good' when you can visit the afterlife of good, point at a literal angel made entirely of positive energy and say "that, that is what good is"